Deputies who might be alive today, if we actually had an administration who cared about borders and the law…
Via Daily Caller:
Marcelo Marquez, the man accused to killing two sheriff’s deputies in California was in the country illegally and had been deported twice to Mexico — once in 1997, and again in 2001.
Marquez, 34, is accused of killing two sheriff’s deputies Friday during a 6-hour crime spree in northern California.
And Marcelo Marquez is not even his real name, it’s actually Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE filed paperwork Saturday to ensure he is turned over to immigration officials if he is ever released, though that is unlikely.
“Monroy-Bracamonte was first deported to Mexico in 1997 following his arrest and conviction in Arizona for possession of narcotics for sale; he was arrested and returned to Mexico a second time in 2001,” the Sacramento Bee reports.
Monroy-Bracamonte was booked on two counts of murder, attempted murder and carjacking under the false name he gave authorities. His wife, Janelle Marquez Monroy, 38, also faces a charge of attempted murder as well as two counts of carjacking.
The couple is held without bail and expected to make their first court appearance Tuesday.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant court victory in California in which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the Golden State’s 10-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment “as applied to those individuals who successfully pass” the state’s background check prior to the ten days, and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm.
The ruling, by Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, a Bill Clinton appointee, also notes that the 10-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment for those individuals who pass the background check and who possess a valid CCW license. Joining SAF in the case was the Calguns Foundation and individual plaintiffs Brandon Combs and Jeff Silvester, for whom the case is named.
Welcome to Salinas, California. It’s a community of only 150,000 people and the owner of the military assault death machine.
That’s right, a city of less than a quarter million owns a rolling death machine complete with a machine gun turret on top. What the hell would they need that for?
Here’s another shot of the armored monster.
The Salinas Police Department made its new armored rescue vehicle available for public viewing on Tuesday in front of City Hall. Police said the ARV, acquired and customized at very low cost to the city, will provide protection and rescue capabilities to officers and civilians in high-risk situations. (The Californian)
The vehicle was obtained through the US government’s 1033 program established as a means of reallocating government equipment for use by law enforcement.
Kung Fu Quip has more on the militarization of police forces.
Another Court that can find the Second Amendment
A big decision from the 9th Circuit today. Per Eugene Volokh: The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”
In other words, one has the right to carry a gun. The state can elect to recognize this by permitting either “shall-issue” concealed-carry or “shall-issue” open carry, but it cannot restrict or prohibit both.
The key part, as noted by Ace of Spades’s Gabriel Malor, is this:
The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id.
The circuit courts are split on this question, and it is likely that this — or a case like it — will make its way to the Supreme Court before long. The full opinion is here.
We just learned that California is doing something rather unusual. They are allowing an illegal immigrant to join the state bar:
“As a teenager in Northern California, Sergio Garcia worked in the almond fields and in a grocery store, earning his way through college and then law school.
He passed the California bar exam on his first try, something just half of all candidates do.
But when it came time to apply for his law license, Mr. Garcia encountered a formidable hurdle: Because he had come from Mexico illegally, he could not become a lawyer.
That changed Thursday when the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a law passed last fall by the Legislature allowed Mr. Garcia, 36, to be admitted to the state bar and practice law.
What it did not do is address the fact that under federal law, no law firm, business or public agency can legally hire him.”
Let’s look at this story because it speaks volumes about the cowardice of the liberal elites running California over the cliff.
How many innocent gun owners are going to get caught up in this dragnet? The fact is, this law is a disaster waiting to happen and Californians are going to suffer for it.
The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.